A Comparative Study of Misoprostol Versus Continuous Oxytocin Infusion in Induction of Labor – A Prospective Study

Open Access

Abstract

Background: Induction of labor is frequently indicated to prevent maternal and fetal complications. Misoprostol and oxytocin are commonly used methods for labor induction, but their comparative efficacy and safety remain a subject of ongoing research. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of misoprostol versus continuous oxytocin infusion in induction of labor. Methods & Materials: A prospective, comparative study was conducted on 120 pregnant women requiring induction of labor at Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Christian Mission Hospital, Rajshahi, Bangladesh between January to June 2025. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: Group A (n=60) received 25 mcg vaginal misoprostol every 4 hours, while Group B (n=60) received continuous oxytocin infusion starting at 2 mU/min and titrated gradually. Maternal and neonatal outcomes, including induction-to-delivery interval, mode of delivery, uterine hyperstimulation, and Apgar scores, were recorded. Results: The mean induction-to-delivery interval was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group (8 ± 2 hours) compared to the oxytocin group (10 ± 3 hours, p=0.01). Vaginal delivery rates were 85% in the misoprostol group versus 80% in the oxytocin group (p=0.45). Uterine hyperstimulation occurred in 10% of the misoprostol group and 5% of the oxytocin group (p=0.20). Neonatal outcomes, including Apgar scores and NICU admissions, were comparable between groups. Conclusion: Misoprostol is as effective as continuous oxytocin for labor induction, with the advantage of a shorter induction-to-delivery interval. Careful maternal and fetal monitoring is essential to minimize complications.